Texas primary may be delayed by high court ruling (UPDATED)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ordered a Texas panel of federal judges to redraw its interim redistricting maps, a decision that leaves in doubt the date of the state’s primary elections.

In a unanimous order, the justices instructed the three-judge federal panel in San Antonio to base its interim redistricting maps for state House, Senate and congressional seats on the ones passed by the Republican Legislature.

But the court order also gave the Texas judges authority to draw new political lines in areas where there is a “reasonable probability” that the Legislature’s maps would violate the Voting Rights Act.

The high court’s order was seen as a mixed victory because it ruled that the Legislature and the court-drawn maps could not be used without alteration and explanation.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the Supreme Court made clear “that the district court must give deference to elected leaders of this state.”

“The Supreme Court’s swift decision will allow Texas to move forward with elections as soon as possible, under maps that are lawful,” Abbott said.

But minority rights groups challenging the state’s maps said the San Antonio court did give deference to the Legislature.

Nina Perales with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said the Supreme Court order still blocks the use of the Legislature’s maps until a separate Washington court panel finds that they do not discriminate against minorities.

“We are very pleased,” Perales said. “The Supreme Court refused to allow the state of Texas to put its maps in place.”

Michael Li, a Dallas elections lawyer who publishes a Texas redistricting newsletter, said the Supreme Court order “looks like a hard-fought compromise.”

“It looks like there was give and take in the opinion,” Li said.

Jose Garza, who argued the case before the Supreme Court last week for the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, said the order gives the San Antonio court more guidance on how new political districts can be drawn.

“The court in Texas must be more clear,” Garza said. “We could come up with something very similar to the San Antonio maps; the court just has to explain it better.”

Luis Vera, counsel with the League of United Latin American Citizens, cautioned the state not to “read too much” into the court order.

“I think we are going to get a better map,” Vera said.

At stake in the redistricting battle are Democratic attempts to win more congressional seats that could aid their efforts to win back the U.S. House of Representatives, where Republicans hold a 242-192 majority, with one vacancy.

Texas gained 4.3 million people between 2000 and 2010, and its congressional delegation will increase from 32 to 36 seats. The Legislature’s map created no new minority opportunity districts, Latino rights groups claim, and the court map created three opportunity districts.

Democrats also complained that the state maps decrease the number of seats for minorities in the Texas House and strip Democrats of one seat in the Texas Senate. Republicans say the maps reflect the GOP preference of voters in the state.

“I agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the point person for the GOP congressional delegation on redistricting.

“I hope that the court will now draw a map that accurately reflects the makeup of Texas and respects the maps drawn by the Texas Legislature,” he said.

Legal challenges to the state’s redistricting plans have pushed back the political primaries from March 6 to April 3.

Republicans were hopeful that the quick ruling by the Supreme Court would allow the lower court to redraw maps and avoid another delay, said Chris Elam, a Texas GOP spokesman in Austin.

But whether the primaries face another delay could depend on the speed in which the San Antonio court redraws an interim to the Supreme Court’s guidelines.

“They cannot rubber-stamp the Texas plan,” Perales said. “We foresee going back to court in San Antonio. We’re confident any subsequent map will not discriminate against Latino voters.”

The map drawn by the legislature must meet preclearance requirements under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Texas is one of nine states that need Justice Department approval of new maps because of a pattern of past racial prejudice.

Interim maps were drawn by the San Antonio court after Texas sued in U.S. federal court in Washington to bypass the preclearance requirement.

A two-week trial in the District of Columbia began Monday to determine whether the legislature’s maps do not discriminate. The trial is scheduled through Feb. 3.

Judge Rosemary Collyer, one of three justices hearing the case in District of Columbia district court, said from the bench Friday that there would be little impact on the ongoing trial.

“It may mean we are not in a race with the Supreme Court to make our decision,” Collyer said.